I always have a lot of trouble getting past inclined climbing walls. You know, the ones that go like the one here: http://anumc.anu.edu.au/files/climbing_wall_0.jpg

I just have trouble holding it. I wouldn't say I'm too fat: I'm 6'3 and weigh 176 lbs with 15% bodyfat. Is this just a matter of technique? If it is, I suppose I just have to climb moar to become better at handling these right?

Climb more. Focus on your feet. Actively push your hips into the wall so that you can get more weight over your feet. Try to hang straight armed whenever possible. Pick up the Self-Coached Climber, study it, and go practice the exercises.

I always have a lot of trouble getting past inclined climbing walls. You know, the ones that go like the one here: http://anumc.anu.edu.au/files/climbing_wall_0.jpg

I just have trouble holding it. I wouldn't say I'm too fat: I'm 6'3 and weigh 176 lbs with 15% bodyfat. Is this just a matter of technique? If it is, I suppose I just have to climb moar to become better at handling these right?

I'd say it's mostly a matter of technique. Probably a little bit of endurence as well, but that will come as you climb the steeps more.

Hard to describe the techniques you require online, hopefully you can find someone in real life who can help you with that.

Keep your arms straight and hang from them as much as possible. When you want to move your right arm, pull your right hip into the wall. Self coached climber is a good book. Neil Gresham has a good DVD set also.

At the pinnacle of her abilities, Lynn Hill was about 6% bodyfat, which is low even for most men.

With all due respect, No. Just No. For women, 10-12% BF is essential for proper organ function, and a woman will look absolutely ripped at that percentage. Like fitness model on stage ripped. At 6% Lynn wouldn't be climbing anything, she'd be in the hospital.

At the pinnacle of her abilities, Lynn Hill was about 6% bodyfat, which is low even for most men.

With all due respect, No. Just No. For women, 10-12% BF is essential for proper organ function, and a woman will look absolutely ripped at that percentage. Like fitness model on stage ripped. At 6% Lynn wouldn't be climbing anything, she'd be in the hospital.

Serious question here...not trying to be argumentative...other than reproductive organs, which are not necessary for survival, what organ(s) would be negatively impacted by lower BF% in a woman that wouldn't also be affected in a man? Ie, assuming that a woman's BF% gets below this 10-12% and she loses normal function of her reproductive organs, which I would not think would put her in the hospital, what essential organ function would she lose that a man would not also lose?

I've tested lots of male athletes for BF% but have never tested any women. I know they tend to have higher BF%, but have no knowledge of what an "unsafe" BF% would be for a woman.

At the pinnacle of her abilities, Lynn Hill was about 6% bodyfat, which is low even for most men.

With all due respect, No. Just No. For women, 10-12% BF is essential for proper organ function, and a woman will look absolutely ripped at that percentage. Like fitness model on stage ripped. At 6% Lynn wouldn't be climbing anything, she'd be in the hospital.

That's what she told me BITD. It seemed too low but I didn't challenge her on the figure.

I don't know how going under essential BF percentages would affect men and women differently, aside from reproductive issues in women (female athlete triad and all that fun stuff).

For both men and women, going under essential bodyfat percentages is seriously bad for multiple organ systems, including, perhaps most importantly, the heart.

6% bodyfat would be about half the amount of essential fat for a woman. She'd have no period, osteoporosis, decreased thyroid function, a slow/inactive GI track, decreased kidney function, and heart arrhythmia. Her hormones would be whacked the fuck out (that's a technical term). She'd have no energy. She'd always be cold. She couldn't climb the stairs, much less the Nose.

Exactly as Dr. Tastycakes said. The most detrimental part of being underweight for a woman is the serious reduction in estrogen levels that accompany it. Without estrogen, the menstrual cycle goes to hell, and bones become more and more brittle. Furthermore, athletic ability would be shot by the time you reach 6% BF. Think of anorexia nervosa--the female athlete triad is disorder eating still, just different.

It's extremely common to A) misjudge your BF% and B) misjudge the importance of your BF%. Underestimating BF% is extremely common, especially with common commercial scales which use bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA).

BF% is a factor in your climbing strength, but it is far from the most important factor. Here's an article analyzing the anthropometric features of world-class boulderers:

Most pertinently, the BF% for men ranged from 3.4 - 10.6% and for women ranged from 12.1 - 21%. Yes, all numbers in this range are within the 'athletic' range, but it is still a huge range, and all of the included climbers are at similar, extremely high ability levels. There's a figure at the bottom of the article showing an analysis of the most important physical characteristics for sport climbing performance, and out of them, BF% comes in dead last.

So, @Snowbat, don't stress about your BF%. It may be a little high compared to the world's best, but it's certainly not holding you back!

I don't know how going under essential BF percentages would affect men and women differently, aside from reproductive issues in women (female athlete triad and all that fun stuff).

For both men and women, going under essential bodyfat percentages is seriously bad for multiple organ systems, including, perhaps most importantly, the heart.

6% bodyfat would be about half the amount of essential fat for a woman. She'd have no period, osteoporosis, decreased thyroid function, a slow/inactive GI track, decreased kidney function, and heart arrhythmia. Her hormones would be whacked the fuck out (that's a technical term). She'd have no energy. She'd always be cold. She couldn't climb the stairs, much less the Nose.

-Dr.tastycakes

I guess what I am asking is why the "essential" BF% is so different for a man and a woman?

I realize women have higher BF% than men, even at similar athletic builds. BUT, why would a woman at 6% be any more prone to "osteoporosis, decreased thyroid function, a slow/inactive GI track, decreased kidney function, and heart arrhythmia" than a man at 6%? I can assure you that 6% for a male athlete is low but not extremely abnormal, but it is not normal for a woman. Sure I can see a woman with 6% having all sorts of repro problems, but why would it be more likely to cause all these other life threatening problems? Not arguing that you aren't correct, I guess I just don't understand why. Maybe it's time to open a physiology book.

BTW, after testing many athletes, I can tell you that most all overestimate their own BF%.

Keep your arms straight and hang from them as much as possible. When you want to move your right arm, pull your right hip into the wall. Self coached climber is a good book. Neil Gresham has a good DVD set also.